The man who invented the term cold fusion now says that the effect popularly described as cold fusion or low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) is not fusion. Professor Emeritus Steven E. Jones told Sterling D. Allan of Pure Energy Systems that hes not sure what to call the effect.

Jones is the man who came up with the term cold fusion in a Scientific American article in July 1987. Jones was actually researching the phenomenon two full years before Pons and Fleischmann put it on the map. Yet he is still unsure of what to call it after nearly thirty years of research.

Like many researchers Jones has been able to create excess heat in electrolytic cells but hasnt been able to explain where it comes from. Jones told Allan that he thinks the process should not be called fusion because it doesnt exhibit the characteristics of fusion. He thinks the use of the term fusion makes it easy for naysayers to ignore and shutdown LENR experiments.

Jones doesnt like the term LENR either because he thinks that a lot of the processes involved are not nuclear. If thats true it means a lot of LENR researchers have been looking in the wrong places. In other words it is a chemical or electrochemical process. It also lends credence to Andrea Rossis recent claims that he can achieve LENR reactions through a gas fired device.

Jones proposed that LENR be called Freedom Energy which is a misleading term because it lends credence to the misleading notion that cold fusion is free energy. There is no such as free energy because a device has to be built and energy has to be fed into to achieve the reaction. Since you would have to pay for the device and the energy neither is free. A better term might anomalous xs heat which would enable researchers to examine the phenomenon without getting lynched by physicists.

Jones has managed to replicate Pons and Fleischmanns famous experiments and create excess heat in a bell shaped electrode apparatus. Interestingly enough Jones copied his design from Peter Davey a scientist from New Zealand who performed similar experiments in the 1940s. Jones believes that Davey produced amounts of energy that were several times what he put into his device over forty years before Pons and Fleischmann got together in Utah.

More of Steven Jones' back room experiments

Jones has been invited to give a lecture on his work and theories at the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (SKINR) at the University of Missouri. Jones apparently gave the lecture in October although Allan doesnt say whether he did or not. A Power Point of Jones lecture is available online. Jones lecture is evidence of the importance of openness to LENR at a major university. His revelations also indicate that the future of LENR is in the hands of garage researchers and not the scientific establishment.

The morning after Pons and Fleischmann made the evening news I remarked to several coworkers that calling the reaction cold fusion was a huge mistake because so many physicists were feeding at the government’s high temperature fusion research trough.

Beaudette is a retired electrical engineer (former instrument engineer and company top manager) who attended one of the ICCF conferences, as he put it "on a whim". Being impressed by the quality of the data presented, he decided to investigate the science as a retirement hobby. Hence the book.

Unlike Storms book, which focuses on complete (but shallow) coverage of the entire available science of CF, Beaudette is more selective, focusing tightly on the key experiments, experimenters, and replications. He goes into much greater depth on each experiment and experimenter. The book is also much more readable by the "non-scientist", while still containing sufficient references to convince the scientifically oriented.

other than the fact color video will never be the same once they get this phenomenon corraled, this might explain excess heat ~ that is, heat beyond that predicted by the standard models and equations.

Yes, I thought that book was a good read also. The current state of the science of LENR is that the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated and it is an established scientific fact. But it is not an established ENGINEERING field because the effect is difficult to generate and there is still some lingering stigma associated with the field. Just think of where computers would be right now if silicon transistors had a strong stigma associated with them in the early days. We would be marvelling at individual logic gate chips.

Note that the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project reported a few days ago that they discovered a possible error in Celani's work that could explain most, if not all, of the "excess" heat:

As a preliminary result, it appears that this pressure related temperature change in Hydrogen could account for the vast majority of the demonstrated rise in power in Celani's graph above the 10 watt baseline that the run starts at.

Read the story here, along with lots of interesting comments pointing out how error-prone the methods they are using can be:

See http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/163-a-partial-explaination for the details.

"Yet he ignores the actual report from the web site that they appear to have discovered an error that could explain the "excess" heat.

What makes you think that the MFMP experiment is the proof that Kevmo is referring to?? There are literally dozens of replications in refereed papers. The MFMP guys "think" they "may" have discovered an error. But their cell is not identical to Celani's, and in fact they know that the glass work of the seal on their cell was flawed as it came from the glass shop (scratched and leaked). They attempted a polish to smooth it themselves, but this "error" may well be due to their cell's known flaw.

And since they are in regular communication with Celani, the error will indoubtedly either be fixed, or the source clarified.

"Meanwhile, we're still waiting for someone, anyone, to present credible evidence for a LENR device that can brew a cup of tea. So far, no one has even come close.

Again....been done. The Beaudette book explains things in sufficient simplicity that even a scientific illiterate like youself can understand.

A multibillion $ company specializing in test & measurement recently concluded it is not chemical in origin. They have no need to risk their business & reputation and stick their neck out for a simple chemical mistake. National Instruments recently concluded that with so much evidence of anomalous heat generation... http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf Conclusion  There is an unknown physical event and there is a need of better measurements and control tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating innovation and discovery.

LENR seems to have its own set of Anti-Science Truthers. In the last couple of years, there has been quite a bit of activity in the area of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Originally, the field was called Cold Fusion in 1989 when Pons & Fleischmann announced their findings prematurely. They were ridiculed and blacklisted by scientists who could have lost funding for their nuclear projects in 1989, even though some of their findings were soon replicated.. You can get the story here:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=263

In fact, the only verified instance of Fraud in LENR was when MIT scientists fudged their results to show a negative result rather than the positive one the data supports.

The ongoing story here on Free Republic has been one where the detractors use ridicule, falsehoods, false argumentation, classic fallacies, misdirection, and all manner of unscientific and ugly behavior other than to discuss the science behind the claims. In order to fight fire with fire, I started calling these pathological skeptics seagulls but the moderator told me not to do that. So the skeptopaths are allowed certain tactics on FR but the LENR afficianados are not. It turns out that one of the moderators resigned, and his scientific background was lacking in terms of being able to properly absorb this material. At one time he even put it on the same level as BigFoot without backing it up when confronted: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2917406/posts?page=3976#3976

And even though the Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated hundreds of times by more than a thousand scientists, even in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.

. National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not need to stick its neck out for bigfoot stories. After noting more than 150 replications, they recently concluded that with so much evidence of anomalous heat generation... http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf Conclusion  There is an unknown physical event and there is a need of better measurements and control tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating innovation and discovery.

The current state of the science of LENR is that the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated and it is an established scientific fact. But it is not an established ENGINEERING field because the effect is difficult to generate and there is still some lingering stigma associated with the field. The level of pathological resistance this field receives is unconscionable for those of us who seek scientific answers and engineering solutions.

If you find that the thread leads to this post it is because I no longer respond to the seagulls, I send all inquiries to this post so that crickets are not generated, nor is there an impression left that they have an objection worth pursuing. If lurkers feel the objection is worth pursuing, they can repost the same question. To learn more about LENR, I recommend the LENR-CANR website http://lenr-canr.org/

"Meanwhile, we're still waiting for someone, anyone, to present credible evidence for a LENR device that can brew a cup of tea. So far, no one has even come close."

Interestingly enough, Beaudette uses a similar "kitchen analogy" to illustrate the magnitude of energy release. He uses the following "layman's description" of the results of one of the Japanese efforts....."the energy released was enough to power an electric stove burner at full heat for seventeen hours".

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2966526/posts ~ Kev, you’ll want to read through this bit ~ that’s where some of your critics come from ~ whether they know it or not. You said ‘rossi’ ~ they said ‘we know where you live’ ~ I do believe I came close to uncovering this last November a year ago.

In the fall of 2006, amid controversy surrounding his work on the collapse of the World Trade Center (Jones claimed to have evidence that showed the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition during the September 11 attacks), he was relieved of his teaching duties at Brigham Young University and placed on paid leave.

23
posted on 12/07/2012 6:28:08 AM PST
by Moonman62
(The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)

Hydrofusion today issued the following press release on their web site: Hydro Fusion witnessed a new independent test of the high temperature ECAT prototype reactor on September 6th in Bologna. Although no full report has yet been received, early indications are that the results of the July 16th/August 7th reports could not be reproduced. Hydro Fusion cannot at this stage support any claims made, written or other, about the amount of excess heat generated by the new high temperature ECAT prototype

33
posted on 12/09/2012 4:04:52 PM PST
by Moonman62
(The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)

Professor Emeritus Steven E. Jones... is the man who came up with the term cold fusion in a Scientific American article in July 1987. Jones was actually researching the phenomenon two full years before Pons and Fleischmann put it on the map. Yet he is still unsure of what to call it after nearly thirty years of research... he thinks the process should not be called fusion because it doesnt exhibit the characteristics of fusion... doesnt like the term LENR either because he thinks that a lot of the processes involved are not nuclear. If thats true it means a lot of LENR researchers have been looking in the wrong places. In other words it is a chemical or electrochemical process... Jones has managed to replicate Pons and Fleischmanns famous experiments and create excess heat in a bell shaped electrode apparatus. Interestingly enough Jones copied his design from Peter Davey a scientist from New Zealand who performed similar experiments in the 1940s. Jones believes that Davey produced amounts of energy that were several times what he put into his device over forty years before Pons and Fleischmann got together in Utah.

Thats the big problem with cold fusion/LENR: you need to be able to consistently demonstrate a long-running reaction which generates energy well in excess of any possible chemical reaction.

It also needs to be disconnected from external power sources, and be examined to show that there are no hidden compartments containing batteries, charged capacitors, or tiny nuclear reactors. If it really generates excess energy, then some of that energy could be fed back in to keep the device running.

But nothing we would expect to see if cold/fusion or LENR were real actually happens, does it? Instead, we see nothing but endless diatribes about how it's "real." Oddly, when things really are real, no one spends a lot of time defending their reality...

40
posted on 05/30/2013 3:46:48 AM PDT
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.